logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2015.12.04 2014나10390
대여금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. On October 25, 2013, the Plaintiff leased KRW 10,000,00 to the Defendant on October 25, 2013, the Defendant, as the representative director, on the part of the non-SP Capital that the Plaintiff worked, on the part of the Defendant Company C (hereinafter “C”), and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the above borrowed amount to the Plaintiff.

B. After the Defendant, who was an employee of Defendant C, embezzled the company’s funds, the Defendant received a request for return from the Defendant and made the Plaintiff transfer the said money to the Defendant’s account under the name of the Defendant, and the Defendant did not borrow from the Plaintiff.

2. According to the evidence No. 1, the fact that the Plaintiff deposited KRW 10,000,000 in the deposit account in the Defendant’s name on October 25, 2013 is recognized.

However, according to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 2-1, 2, 2-2, and 3 of the evidence Nos. 2-2 and 3, it seems that the Defendant applied for a loan of KRW 24,000,000 to the non-Sscar Capital Co., Ltd. around October 28, 2013 for the Defendant’s deposit of KRW 10,000,000 among them in the Defendant’s deposit account.

Therefore, even if the F had the Plaintiff deposit the above money with the Defendant as if the Plaintiff asserted after appeal, it appears that it was only the relationship between F and the Defendant, and there was no loan contract or loan certificate between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, it is difficult to view that the money transferred to the Defendant’s deposit account was lent to the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim should be dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is just, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow